Family Court Cannot Compel Fresh Suit for Enforcement of Consent Decree: Gujarat High Court Clarifies Scope of Execution Jurisdiction
In a significant ruling reinforcing the finality and enforceability of consent decrees, the Gujarat High Court has held that a Family Court cannot, while executing a decree passed by mutual consent, direct the parties to institute a separate civil suit for enforcement of obligations already agreed upon and incorporated into the decree.
The Court was hearing a First Appeal arising from an order of the Family Court, Ahmedabad, which had declined to execute a consent decree of divorce passed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The decree was granted strictly in terms of a settlement between the parties, wherein one spouse had expressly agreed to relinquish her rights in a jointly owned immovable property and execute a release deed. When the obligation was not honoured, execution proceedings were initiated.
However, the Family Court dismissed the execution petition, holding that the decree did not specifically grant relief for execution of a document and that the decree-holder must seek enforcement by filing a separate suit. The High Court found this approach legally unsustainable.
A Division Bench observed that once a consent decree has attained finality, the executing court cannot refuse to enforce its terms or compel parties to re-litigate settled issues. The Court emphasised that under Sections 7 and 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, Family Courts are vested with jurisdiction over matrimonial property disputes and their decrees are executable in the same manner as civil court decrees.
The High Court further held that the obligation to execute a relinquishment deed was not collateral, but formed an integral part of the settlement on the basis of which the decree of divorce was granted. Relegating the decree-holder to a fresh suit would defeat the legislative intent behind both the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which seek to reduce multiplicity of proceedings and ensure expeditious resolution of family disputes.
Relying on Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court clarified that all questions relating to execution must be decided by the executing court itself, including the execution and registration of documents contemplated under a decree. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.